How do I accurately count the calories I'm burning?
Replies
-
This probably isn't the best answer, but here's what I did.
1) I decided not to stress it too much since it feels to me (gut feeling, no "scientific" basis) that all the measurement methods are a little voodoo.
2) I used a Nike Fuel on several occasions to measure "calorie burn" for the exercises I do most frequently. The only reason I used the Fuel was because my husband was given one as a gift - I can't imagine actually spending money for it or for a Fit Bit. (Again, personal opinion there.)
3) I took the average and created my own exercise in MFP which then become scalable by the minutes. So for me, a "tae kwon do class" burns 22 calories in 10 minutes, while "tae kwon do" exercise (actively kicking without the wait times involved in a class) burns 93 calories in 10 minutes.
4) I use MFP's calorie estimates on walking & running. Enough people have said they're close enough and they did sort of match up with my Fuel average method.
So this isn't a perfect solution. I might go to a class and work a whole lot harder one day than another. But I figure it all averages out.
I did mostly eat back all my calories and it did work for me. But I noticed it worked faster (no surprise) if I didn't eat them all back.
0 -
With circuit training, at least, my average exertion doesn't vary a HUGE amount. I'd care about higher accuracy if I were bulking or just recomposing my body. I'm not. I'm chubby. Lol. I'm mostly losing weight and incidentally getting stronger and building more muscle. Since I have no intention of eating my deficit, like the OP shouldn't be, it falls under "nice to know" instead of "my success depends on this."0
-
With circuit training, at least, my average exertion doesn't vary a HUGE amount. I'd care about higher accuracy if I were bulking or just recomposing my body. I'm not. I'm chubby. Lol. I'm mostly losing weight and incidentally getting stronger and building more muscle. Since I have no intention of eating my deficit, like the OP shouldn't be, it falls under "nice to know" instead of "my success depends on this."0
-
We will also see how accurate it is versus my expected weight loss.
I'll let you know. If I were in better shape, it would probably be less accurate. I'm so out of it, though, that almost everything I hit my max in. Very sad, but it makes the workouts work better, I suppose! 0 -
I do 60 minutes of cardio when I go to the gym, either the bicycle or the treadmill.
I enter my age, weight in the machines and they read I've used around 320 calories, but when I enter the cardio in My Fitness Pal it reads I've burned over 650. Which do you think is accurate? Some days I want to eat those extra calories and cannot afford to make a mistake.
I would use the lower amount, just to be safe. My treadmill is so old, I can't even enter my stats (imagine that!), so that number is way higher than what MFP gives me (since MFP does know my stats). So I use the MFP number. It isn't perfect, but I continue to lose weight so it's Good Enough.0 -
I usually use what the machine says since it knows how much effort I put in, my weight, my approximate heart rate while MFP doesn't take any of that into consideration, just spits out a number. And then I subtract about 30% of what the machine says since machines can be off by as much as 30%.
If I get hungry, I eat something. I log it. I don't overthink it or beat myself up or post long *kitten* statuses justifying why I went over. Some days, I'm just hungrier and as long as I'm filling the hunger with nutrient dense foods, than I don't worry. If I find that I am hungry almost every day and going over despite eating whole nutrient dense foods, I readjust my calorie goal until I find that I'm no longer starving, but still losing.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »...Since I have no intention of eating my deficit,
This is a very relevant point, and one that surfaces frequently in these threads where people promote an HRM as the answer, then concede that they don't actually use the data that the HRM provides to guide their calorie intake.
MFP is designed so that one identifies a deficit and it provides a calorie target to deliver that deficit. If one trains off some calories, then one should really replace them, to retain the deficit at the planned level for the rate of weight loss. Some people eat back everything they burn off, others don't.
Not compensating for the calories expended may be as a result of not trusting the method used to measure, or it may be as a compensation for inaccurate food logging. It may also be a conscious decision to deliver a higher than planned deficit. That's fine if one is talking about reasonably small calorie expenditures, or if ones daily goal is high enough that artificially inflating the deficit doesn't lead to a daily intake that's below recommended guidelines for healthy nutrition; 1200 cals for women, 1600 for men.
For me, I'm eating 2100 cals per day, most of my sessions burn at least 600cals. So I'm straight into an unhealthy situation if I don't eat back a reasonable proportion. That said, I have some difficulty with accurate logging of intake due to my work circumstances, so I do tend to leave a bit of a gap.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Even a heart rate monitor is not perfect..
Given the calorie expenditures that the originator is reporting from the machines, HR is the wrong tool to be using. Given that HR is only a meaningful proxy for calorie expenditure in a fairly limited set of circumstances the originator is unlikely to be operating in a range where it's meaningful.
I'd go as far as to say, in the circumstances, an HRM is the least useful of the three measures talked about as it's not even going to be consistently wrong.
Except for these purposes, consistently wrong isn't even the best virtue. The best thing she can have while losing weight and relying on eat back calories is one that will under measure the calories the most often.0 -
In all probability neither is likely to be accurate - but you haven't mentioned speed, distance, power output, effort....
Would go with the machines - at least they are trying to estimate some of the above factors. 320 sounds low for an hour but you could be walking slowly on the treadmill and not putting much effort into the cycling.
I use a Polar F4 HRM and I burn around 200 calories for 35-40 minutes, so 320 and hour does not sound low to me. Though all calculations are estimates, it seems like a heart rate monitor is the best bet. I like being able to compare various types of exercise using the same device. Now I know that hand scrubbing a floor burns about the same number of calories as walking on my treadmill.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »...Since I have no intention of eating my deficit,
This is a very relevant point, and one that surfaces frequently in these threads where people promote an HRM as the answer, then concede that they don't actually use the data that the HRM provides to guide their calorie intake.
MFP is designed so that one identifies a deficit and it provides a calorie target to deliver that deficit. If one trains off some calories, then one should really replace them, to retain the deficit at the planned level for the rate of weight loss. Some people eat back everything they burn off, others don't.
Not compensating for the calories expended may be as a result of not trusting the method used to measure, or it may be as a compensation for inaccurate food logging. It may also be a conscious decision to deliver a higher than planned deficit. That's fine if one is talking about reasonably small calorie expenditures, or if ones daily goal is high enough that artificially inflating the deficit doesn't lead to a daily intake that's below recommended guidelines for healthy nutrition; 1200 cals for women, 1600 for men.
For me, I'm eating 2100 cals per day, most of my sessions burn at least 600cals. So I'm straight into an unhealthy situation if I don't eat back a reasonable proportion. That said, I have some difficulty with accurate logging of intake due to my work circumstances, so I do tend to leave a bit of a gap.
I've often thought the same thing. I got my first polar HRM so that I could do cardio without having to hold the handles, the calories burned was a pleasant surprise. I only use the heart rate function when I'm doing some activity that would burn calories. so why wouldn't I believe it.
0 -
HappyTrails7 wrote: »I see many comments on what doesn't work, but no suggestions on what should be used in place of HRM, machine readouts, etc.
Mostly because the answer is: You can't accurately count your calorie burn unless you're hooked up to some serious metabolic testing equipment in a lab.
Thanks for the education. 0 -
0
-
FYI.GuitarJerry wrote: »
Higher spec ones allow you to custom set your VO2 max. Think that my FT60 is the cheapest one in their range that allows it.
It also has a proxy "fitness test" to estimate VO2.
How accurate that is... open to debate.
I use the number I got in a sport lab test of VO2 and HR max.
For true steady state cardio it compares very accurately to a power meter. As soon as you deviate from that with intervals or even simply getting hot the numbers start to diverge significantly.
But hey - it's a gadget so the numbers must be true!
/sarcasm.
Doesn't your V02 change over time if you're really vigorously working out.0 -
@ScubaSteve1962ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »
FYI.GuitarJerry wrote: »
Higher spec ones allow you to custom set your VO2 max. Think that my FT60 is the cheapest one in their range that allows it.
It also has a proxy "fitness test" to estimate VO2.
How accurate that is... open to debate.
I use the number I got in a sport lab test of VO2 and HR max.
For true steady state cardio it compares very accurately to a power meter. As soon as you deviate from that with intervals or even simply getting hot the numbers start to diverge significantly.
But hey - it's a gadget so the numbers must be true!
/sarcasm.
Doesn't your V02 change over time if you're really vigorously working out.
Yes, it's an indicator of your fitness level at that point in time.
But I had my sports lab test done after I had already got very fit. I've probably got a slightly better count now but I'm unlikely to make significant fitness gains as I'm too close to my genetic and age potential.
The built in fitness test app on the watch has only shown very small incremental improvements which seems to back it up. I'm still improving my endurance but so much my peak levels.
0 -
-
ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »I only use the heart rate function when I'm doing some activity that would burn calories. so why wouldn't I believe it.
I use mine to help me understand how my heart is responding to training stimulus. Essentially are my recoveries appropriate, is my lactate threshold improving, am I consistently hitting the same range during comparable effort periods etc.
As far as calorie estimation is concerned, the algorithms were designed based on research carried out using treadmills, rowing and cycling ergometers. So if one is doing something that doesn't replicate those conditions then the relationship between HR and calorie expenditure breaks down.
Take a very simple example. If you sprint for 100 metres and then stop, your HR will remain elevated above your normal rate for a period. You're not then burning any additional calories, because you're now stationary, but the algorithms will assess an increased calorie expenditure during that period. so if your HR fluctuates, then the calorie estimation will start to be increasingly elevated as HR increases faster than it decreases. That's compounded by HR escalation over time, which is a response to physiological effects of exercise and the need to continue moving a volume of oxygen around.
Personally, if I go out and run for 2 hours, I'm reasonably comfortable that I've got a calorie estimation that's only out by a couple of hundred calories. If I go out and warm up for 15 minutes, do 20 minutes of sprint intervals and then cool down again for another 15 minutes the percentage error will be somewhat higher. Of course it's also influenced by how hydrated I am, how much coffee I might have had, whether I'm running along a busy road or a quiet trail. Hint, the busy road will lead to a higher heart rate as a result of stress.
Similarly if I measure my HR whilst I'm cycling through London, it's sky high despite the ride being very stop/ start and generally quite slow (12-15mph). I'd estimate at least 50% error in that instance.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »I only use the heart rate function when I'm doing some activity that would burn calories. so why wouldn't I believe it.
I use mine to help me understand how my heart is responding to training stimulus. Essentially are my recoveries appropriate, is my lactate threshold improving, am I consistently hitting the same range during comparable effort periods etc.
As far as calorie estimation is concerned, the algorithms were designed based on research carried out using treadmills, rowing and cycling ergometers. So if one is doing something that doesn't replicate those conditions then the relationship between HR and calorie expenditure breaks down.
Take a very simple example. If you sprint for 100 metres and then stop, your HR will remain elevated above your normal rate for a period. You're not then burning any additional calories, because you're now stationary, but the algorithms will assess an increased calorie expenditure during that period. so if your HR fluctuates, then the calorie estimation will start to be increasingly elevated as HR increases faster than it decreases. That's compounded by HR escalation over time, which is a response to physiological effects of exercise and the need to continue moving a volume of oxygen around.
Personally, if I go out and run for 2 hours, I'm reasonably comfortable that I've got a calorie estimation that's only out by a couple of hundred calories. If I go out and warm up for 15 minutes, do 20 minutes of sprint intervals and then cool down again for another 15 minutes the percentage error will be somewhat higher. Of course it's also influenced by how hydrated I am, how much coffee I might have had, whether I'm running along a busy road or a quiet trail. Hint, the busy road will lead to a higher heart rate as a result of stress.
Similarly if I measure my HR whilst I'm cycling through London, it's sky high despite the ride being very stop/ start and generally quite slow (12-15mph). I'd estimate at least 50% error in that instance.
Okay, but as I stated, I'm only recording my heart rate during the activity IE: today on the elliptical for 67 mins, it's 40 mins in the 80% to 90% zone, and 26 in the 70% to 80%, this is what's consider vigorous exercise. it says I burn 659 calories. but I shouldn't believe it? there was no start and stop, it was a constant speed throughout.
0 -
ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »I only use the heart rate function when I'm doing some activity that would burn calories. so why wouldn't I believe it.
I use mine to help me understand how my heart is responding to training stimulus. Essentially are my recoveries appropriate, is my lactate threshold improving, am I consistently hitting the same range during comparable effort periods etc.
As far as calorie estimation is concerned, the algorithms were designed based on research carried out using treadmills, rowing and cycling ergometers. So if one is doing something that doesn't replicate those conditions then the relationship between HR and calorie expenditure breaks down.
Take a very simple example. If you sprint for 100 metres and then stop, your HR will remain elevated above your normal rate for a period. You're not then burning any additional calories, because you're now stationary, but the algorithms will assess an increased calorie expenditure during that period. so if your HR fluctuates, then the calorie estimation will start to be increasingly elevated as HR increases faster than it decreases. That's compounded by HR escalation over time, which is a response to physiological effects of exercise and the need to continue moving a volume of oxygen around.
Personally, if I go out and run for 2 hours, I'm reasonably comfortable that I've got a calorie estimation that's only out by a couple of hundred calories. If I go out and warm up for 15 minutes, do 20 minutes of sprint intervals and then cool down again for another 15 minutes the percentage error will be somewhat higher. Of course it's also influenced by how hydrated I am, how much coffee I might have had, whether I'm running along a busy road or a quiet trail. Hint, the busy road will lead to a higher heart rate as a result of stress.
Similarly if I measure my HR whilst I'm cycling through London, it's sky high despite the ride being very stop/ start and generally quite slow (12-15mph). I'd estimate at least 50% error in that instance.
Okay, but as I stated, I'm only recording my heart rate during the activity
I wouldn't anticipate use of an HRM outside of the training period. 24/7 HR monitoring as is currently touted is useless.today on the elliptical for 67 mins, it's 40 mins in the 80% to 90% zone, and 26 in the 70% to 80%, this is what's consider vigorous exercise. it says I burn 659 calories. but I shouldn't believe it? there was no start and stop, it was a constant speed throughout.
Difficult to say without a lot more detail, but if I were to see that figure after an elliptical session I'd cut it by 20-30%, but we're into the point I made earlier about consistent error. The calorie expenditure comes from moving your body mass against the resistance of the machine, and your HR is an indicator of the work to move oxygen around to burn your fuel. Accounting for your VO2Max and lactate threshold help as you can more closely identify the top end inflection where the anaerobic system is dominant.
Again, for me, running gives me about 100 cals per mile. So an hour at c60%MHR will give me about 600-650cals. Ellipticals are about 2/3 as effective as running in burning fuel, so an hour on the elliptical at around 60% I'd expect around 400 cals. I can only run for an hour at lactate threshold pace but that would give me about 800 cals.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »I only use the heart rate function when I'm doing some activity that would burn calories. so why wouldn't I believe it.
I use mine to help me understand how my heart is responding to training stimulus. Essentially are my recoveries appropriate, is my lactate threshold improving, am I consistently hitting the same range during comparable effort periods etc.
As far as calorie estimation is concerned, the algorithms were designed based on research carried out using treadmills, rowing and cycling ergometers. So if one is doing something that doesn't replicate those conditions then the relationship between HR and calorie expenditure breaks down.
Take a very simple example. If you sprint for 100 metres and then stop, your HR will remain elevated above your normal rate for a period. You're not then burning any additional calories, because you're now stationary, but the algorithms will assess an increased calorie expenditure during that period. so if your HR fluctuates, then the calorie estimation will start to be increasingly elevated as HR increases faster than it decreases. That's compounded by HR escalation over time, which is a response to physiological effects of exercise and the need to continue moving a volume of oxygen around.
Personally, if I go out and run for 2 hours, I'm reasonably comfortable that I've got a calorie estimation that's only out by a couple of hundred calories. If I go out and warm up for 15 minutes, do 20 minutes of sprint intervals and then cool down again for another 15 minutes the percentage error will be somewhat higher. Of course it's also influenced by how hydrated I am, how much coffee I might have had, whether I'm running along a busy road or a quiet trail. Hint, the busy road will lead to a higher heart rate as a result of stress.
Similarly if I measure my HR whilst I'm cycling through London, it's sky high despite the ride being very stop/ start and generally quite slow (12-15mph). I'd estimate at least 50% error in that instance.
Okay, but as I stated, I'm only recording my heart rate during the activity
I wouldn't anticipate use of an HRM outside of the training period. 24/7 HR monitoring as is currently touted is useless.today on the elliptical for 67 mins, it's 40 mins in the 80% to 90% zone, and 26 in the 70% to 80%, this is what's consider vigorous exercise. it says I burn 659 calories. but I shouldn't believe it? there was no start and stop, it was a constant speed throughout.
Difficult to say without a lot more detail, but if I were to see that figure after an elliptical session I'd cut it by 20-30%, but we're into the point I made earlier about consistent error. The calorie expenditure comes from moving your body mass against the resistance of the machine, and your HR is an indicator of the work to move oxygen around to burn your fuel. Accounting for your VO2Max and lactate threshold help as you can more closely identify the top end inflection where the anaerobic system is dominant.
Again, for me, running gives me about 100 cals per mile. So an hour at c60%MHR will give me about 600-650cals. Ellipticals are about 2/3 as effective as running in burning fuel, so an hour on the elliptical at around 60% I'd expect around 400 cals. I can only run for an hour at lactate threshold pace but that would give me about 800 cals.
Oooookayy, that's just too much to be trying to figure out
think I'll just stick with that my HRM says, after all it is supposed to be one of the best.
0 -
ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »Oooookayy, that's just too much to be trying to figure out think I'll just stick with that my HRM says, after all it is supposed to be one of the best.
Never mind the quality, feel the width
0 -
Aren't HRMs designed to keep you from exploding your heart more than they are for calculating calorie burn?0
-
They're designed t measure heart rate, that's it.
Knowing heart rate allows one to train more scientifically, assuming that they're used as part of a balanced plan.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »Oooookayy, that's just too much to be trying to figure out think I'll just stick with that my HRM says, after all it is supposed to be one of the best.
Never mind the quality, feel the width
okay missed that one completely, must have lost something in the translation As long as I'm getting the results I want, I really don't care whether it's wrong are right, when it comes to certain things it's always an estimation no matter what these so called experts tell you. Contrary to popular belief, one size doesn't fix all.
0 -
Everything is a complete guess - go with the lowest number
Personally I do the TDEE method so I don't have to worry about it.0 -
ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »
okay missed that one completely, must have lost something in the translationMeanderingMammal wrote: »ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »Oooookayy, that's just too much to be trying to figure out think I'll just stick with that my HRM says, after all it is supposed to be one of the best.
Never mind the quality, feel the width As long as I'm getting the results I want, I really don't care whether it's wrong are right, when it comes to certain things it's always an estimation no matter what these so called experts tell you.
That was kind of what I was getting at. Your whole approach is giving you the results you want. You're compensating for the measurement error in some other way, as the original person who was recommending the use of HR monitoring does, by essentially ignoring the figure she gets.
It's a tool, recognise the limitations and compensate accordingly.Contrary to popular belief, one size doesn't fix all.
In this case, where we're talking about the reliability and accuracy of HRMs, yes it does. The laws of physics are pretty much non-negotiable. What one does with this data that it presents is where the results come from.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »...Since I have no intention of eating my deficit,
This is a very relevant point, and one that surfaces frequently in these threads where people promote an HRM as the answer, then concede that they don't actually use the data that the HRM provides to guide their calorie intake.
MFP is designed so that one identifies a deficit and it provides a calorie target to deliver that deficit. If one trains off some calories, then one should really replace them, to retain the deficit at the planned level for the rate of weight loss. Some people eat back everything they burn off, others don't.
Not compensating for the calories expended may be as a result of not trusting the method used to measure, or it may be as a compensation for inaccurate food logging. It may also be a conscious decision to deliver a higher than planned deficit. That's fine if one is talking about reasonably small calorie expenditures, or if ones daily goal is high enough that artificially inflating the deficit doesn't lead to a daily intake that's below recommended guidelines for healthy nutrition; 1200 cals for women, 1600 for men.
For me, I'm eating 2100 cals per day, most of my sessions burn at least 600cals. So I'm straight into an unhealthy situation if I don't eat back a reasonable proportion. That said, I have some difficulty with accurate logging of intake due to my work circumstances, so I do tend to leave a bit of a gap.
I'm at 144.4lbs now. (Actually, I saw 142.2 when I woke up from my nap today, yay!) Combined with my sedentary lifestyle, I can eat only 1220 cals per day to lose a pound a week.
Ermmmmmmmmmm no. lol. Yes, I need to eat more than that. But I'm tired of being chubby, and honestly, I can very comfortably lose 2lbs a week through boosting exercise and keep it off long-term. (I have to lose weight every so often in a concentrated manner cuz I keep having kids!) So I'm going to do that. So I CAN'T set MFP to what I want to lose.
My HRM also does a guess at VO2max, BTW.
I'm logging absolutely everything I eat accurately. But there IS no way to get an accurate calorie expenditure except over time...and even then, now you know last week's totals but not THIS week's totals. Maybe you work out harder. Maybe you work out less hard! Who knows?
You can guess it a bunch of different ways, and many of those guesses are helpful. A HRM is more useful than the machine stats, especially if you're really out of shape, like me.
If you want to lose weight, why eat it all back? It makes sense if you're just wanting to change fat composition or to build muscles, but why eat it all if you want to lose, anyway, if it's never going to be perfectly accurate? As long as you're not hungry, you're good.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »They're designed t measure heart rate, that's it.
Knowing heart rate allows one to train more scientifically, assuming that they're used as part of a balanced plan.
My scientific training tells me that hovering between 165 and 185bpm doing level 1 of the 30-Day Shred shows that I'm absurdly out of shape. LOL.
The saddest part is how much it took to get even to that point....0 -
HappyTrails7 wrote: »Aren't HRMs designed to keep you from exploding your heart more than they are for calculating calorie burn?
The chances that you'll "explode your heart" without a heart defect is extremely low.
Some silly people use them to stay in the "fat burning zone" when trying to lose weight (my very foolish mother included). Others use them to make sure they stay ABOVE a certain zone, as it's a thumbnail for general effort. Whatever zone you're in, it'll come out of your body as fat eventually. (And some muscle, too, if you aren't doing strength, which I am for exactly that reason.)0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Again, for me, running gives me about 100 cals per mile. So an hour at c60%MHR will give me about 600-650cals. Ellipticals are about 2/3 as effective as running in burning fuel, so an hour on the elliptical at around 60% I'd expect around 400 cals. I can only run for an hour at lactate threshold pace but that would give me about 800 cals.
I can get two different levels of workout on an elliptical, though. If I'm using my arms heavily (being a girl), it's TONS more work at the same speed than if my arms are just "hanging out." My elliptical's going to read the same, regardless.
You also burn more calories on the same exercise for the same distance and duration when you're out of shape. That's why people plateau. They think they're getting the same workout, but they're not......
0 -
HappyTrails7 wrote: »I see many comments on what doesn't work, but no suggestions on what should be used in place of HRM, machine readouts, etc.
Mostly because the answer is: You can't accurately count your calorie burn unless you're hooked up to some serious metabolic testing equipment in a lab.
Exactly. Everything else is an estimate, some better than others. But then again, even if you are weighing your food meticulously, that is just an estimate, too (unless you're in a fancy lab). You just need to make sure that your (estimate of) calories out exceeds your (estimate of) calories in, and you'll lose weight. If not? Then one of your estimates is probably incorrect.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions